coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1956 and 1946 respectively and live in İslahiye, Gaziantep.
5.  Each of the applicants, who were employees of the İslahiye Municipality, brought proceedings before the İslahiye Civil Court of First Instance acting as a labour court, claiming unpaid wages and other pecuniary rights on 10 October 2001 and 21 November 2001, respectively.
6.  On 21 May 2004 and 23 May 2003, respectively, the İslahiye Civil Court of First Instance granted the applicants’ requests partially and ordered the payment of 14,288 Turkish Liras (TRY)[1] to the first applicant and TRY 18,514[2] to the second applicant, together with interest. These judgments became final as no appeal was filed against them.
7.  The first applicant further initiated execution proceedings before the İslahiye Execution Office to obtain the amount ordered by the İslahiye Civil Court of First Instance (file no. 2005/8415).
8.  At the date of introduction of the applications, the aforementioned judgment debts were still outstanding.
9.  On 14 November 2002 and 14 September 2002, respectively, the applicants retired from their jobs at the İslahiye Municipality. The town council calculated the applicants’ severance benefits accordingly.
10.  On 18 March 2003, not having been paid the amounts awarded, the applicants brought proceedings before the İslahiye Civil Court of First Instance acting as a labour court, claiming severance benefits and other pecuniary rights.
11.  On 15 July 2004 the labour court ordered the Municipality to pay TRY 11,918[3] to the first applicant and TRY 12,119[4] to the second applicant, together with interest. These judgments became final as no appeal was filed against them.
12.  The applicants further initiated execution proceedings before the İslahiye Execution Office to obtain those amounts ordered by the İslahiye Civil Court of First Instance (file nos. 2004/351 and 2004/352).
13.  At the date of introduction of the applications, the aforementioned judgment debts were still outstanding.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Thessaloniki.
5.  On 6 March 2000 he lodged an action (no. 2145/2000) with the civil courts seeking the annulment of his late uncle’s will, according to which certain property had been bequeathed to A.A. The applicant alleged that his late uncle had made A.A. his heir after being deceived and blackmailed by her.
6.  On 25 April 2000 A.A. brought criminal complaints against the applicant for malicious defamation, claiming that he had maliciously made false statements in action no. 2145/2000 causing damage to her reputation.
7.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant was prosecuted by the Athens First Instance Prosecutor and the case was remitted to the Athens First Instance Criminal Court.
8.  On 27 June 2005 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence of eight months (judgment no. 46411/2005).
9.  On the same day the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the First Instance court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.
10.  By judgment dated 18 September 2006 the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant’s sentence to a suspended prison sentence of five months (judgment no. 6800/2006).
11. On 27 October 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. On 29 March 2007 he lodged additional grounds of appeal. The appeal on points of law was heard on 16 October 2007.
12.  By judgment dated 28 May 2008 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal (judgment no. 1396/2008). This judgment was finalised on 23 July 2008.
5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Sochi.
6.  On 13 May 2002 the applicant’s husband entered into an agreement with a building company. Under the terms of the contract the company had to build within twelve months an individual house in accordance with the approved project, and the applicant’s husband had to pay them the price of the house in monthly instalments.
7.  On 25 January 2003 the applicant’s husband died.
8.  The building company sued the applicant and her daughter (heirs to the applicant’s husband) seeking to recover the contract arrears and to invalidate their title to the unfinished construction project.
9.  On 20 December 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi (“the District Court”) granted the company’s claims. The applicant appealed. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 21 April 2005.
10.  During the hearing of 21 April 2005 the Krasnodar Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) decided to postpone the appeal hearing at the request of the plaintiff. The applicant’s representative was present. According to the applicant, the Regional Court did not specify the date of the next hearing.
11.  On 27 April 2005 the court notified the applicant that the hearing had been adjourned to 12 May 2005. The applicant received that notification on 12 May 2005, the very date of the hearing. The postmark on the envelope submitted by the applicant showed that it had reached her on 12 May 2005. The Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal in the absence of the applicant and her representative. It follows from the appeal decision of 12 May 2005 that the other party was present at the hearing and made oral submissions.
12.  On 9 June 2005 the applicant requested the Regional Court to re-examine the case, alleging that she had not been duly notified of the appeal hearing of 12 May 2005.
13.  On 29 September 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request, finding that the materials of the case contained evidence that she had been properly notified. However, the Regional Court did not specify what evidence the case file contained.
14.  In 1999 the applicant’s husband joined a building partnership with a view to acquiring a flat. From 1999 to 2002 he paid construction fees.
15.  Following her husband’s death in January 2003 the applicant brought proceedings against the partnership, seeking to join it as a member in her husband’s stead.
16.  On 17 October 2003 the District Court granted the applicant’s claim. On 2 December 2003 the Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.
17.  On 10 June 2004 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above decisions by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
18.  On 19 April 2005 the District Court granted the applicant’s claim. However, on 21 June 2005 the Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
19.  On 21 August 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 26 October 2006 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Athens.
5.  She is employed as a cleaning lady at the General Hospital of Athens “Laiko”.
6.  On 17 June 1996 she lodged a civil action with the Athens First Instance Civil Court asking for a sum of 29,151,114 drachmas (GRD) (i.e. 85,739 euros) in respect of unpaid salaries.
7.  On 2 October 1997 her action was accepted. This decision was certified (θεώρηση) on 8 July 1998 (judgment no. 2927/1997).
8.  On 29 March 1999 the hospital lodged an appeal.
 9. On 21 September 1999 the Athens Civil Court of Appeal accepted the appeal and rejected the applicant’s action as unfounded (judgment no. 7938/1999).
11.  On 4 December 2001 the Court of Cassation accepted the appeal and remitted the case to a different division of the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 1684/2001).
12.  On 20 December 2001 the applicant filed an application before the Court of Appeal asking for a hearing date to be set. The hearing was held on 5 March 2002.
13.  By judgment dated 28 November 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed judgment no. 2927/1997 of the Athens First Instance Civil Court and partially allowed the applicant’s appeal (judgment no. 9275/2002).
15.  On 24 June 2008 the Court of Cassation partially accepted the appeal and remitted the case to a different division of the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 1394/2008). This judgment was finalised on 5 November 2008. It does not transpire from the case file that these proceedings have been concluded.
4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Érd.
5.  The applicant was arrested on 5 October 2000 on suspicion of having committed several counts of fraud and forgery of private documents.
6.  The Budapest X/XVII District Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment in respect of the applicant and forty-two other defendants on 19 June 2003.
7.  After issuing numerous arrest warrants, the Pest Central District Court held several hearings. On 19 February 2009 it delivered a judgment in respect of sixteen defendants. The public prosecutor submitted an appeal in case of two defendants, where the District Court stated in the reasoning of its judgment that the length of the criminal proceedings was taken into account among the mitigating circumstances.
8.  The first-instance judgment in respect of the applicant was delivered on 15 April 2010. The applicant was found guilty, inter alia, of aggravated fraud and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment whose enforcement was suspended for two years and exempted in advance from the effects of criminal conviction. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment and therefore received only a short version of the judgment, based on section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which did not contain a detailed reasoning.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Nyíregyháza.
5.  In June 1989 the applicant initiated an action against the members of a building society before the Nyíregyháza District Court, requesting the court to quash the respondent society’s decision excluding him from the building society.
6.  Following several remittals and suspensions, the proceedings finally continued and were joined with another case initiated by a water management association and the respondents in the earlier case.
7.  On 27 October 2004 the Nyíregyháza District Court delivered its decision which was amended in part on appeal by the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court on 7 April 2005.
8.  On 13 October 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review in a reasoned decision. Examining the merits of the case, it held that the second-instance judgment had not been unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the merits of the case. This decision was served on 29 November 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Gdańsk.
5.  On 16 April 1998 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.
6.  On 1 April 1999 the applicant was released from pre-trial detention.
7.  On 12 January 2000 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant was charged with several counts of receiving and counterfeit. The bill of indictment comprised charges against 19 accused.
8.  In the proceedings the Gdańsk District Court scheduled some thirty eight hearings. At least sixteen of them were adjourned. On many occasions the court did not give any reasons for adjournment decisions.
9.  The proceedings are still pending before the Gdańsk District Court.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
11.  On 16 July 2009 the Gdańsk Regional Court confirmed that the proceedings in question had indeed been lengthy. The court stated, inter alia, that on at least three occasions the Gdańsk District Court had adjourned hearings without giving reasons for its decision. It further stated that on eight occasions the hearings had lasted less than two hours, which taking into account the number of co-accused and difficulties in scheduling a date convenient to all the participants, was proof of bad organisation of the proceedings on the part of the Gdańsk District Court. Furthermore, the court held that on numerous occasions hearings had been adjourned as some of the co–accused had participated on these dates in another set of proceedings or because prison authorities had been given too short notice to organise transport of the accused from a remand centre to the courtroom. The court also pointed out that the Gdańsk District Court did not apply any disciplinary measures against the co-accused who systematically failed to appear for hearings. Finally, the Gdańsk Regional Court stated that the intervals between the hearings had been too significant; in particular on one occasion the Gdańsk District Court had adjourned a hearing for a period of one year without submitting exceptional reasons for its decision as required by the code of criminal procedure. According to the Gdańsk Regional Court, it resulted from the above that the Gdańsk District Court had significantly contributed to the excessive length of the proceedings. The Gdańsk Regional Court did not, however, examine the period prior to the entry into force of the 2004 Act.
12.  The court awarded the applicant 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 250 euros (EUR)) in just satisfaction. Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court held that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the amount of money awarded to him was adequate and compatible with the “social sense of justice”.
5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Vilnius, Lithuania.
6.  The applicant, a retired serviceman, considered himself eligible to receive child allowance payable by the Russian Federation to parents with minor children.
7.  On 15 January 2003 he applied for the allowance to the social security division of the embassy of the Russian Federation in Vilnius, Lithuania.
8.  On 20 January 2003 the social security division refused his request. They noted that the applicant, being a permanent resident of Lithuania, was not eligible to receive the allowance.
9.  On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the decision of the social security division. He lodged a complaint before the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow.
10.  On 29 April 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint without consideration on the merits. In particular, the court ruled as follows:
“This statement of claim cannot be admitted for consideration by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow given that it was submitted in contradiction of the rules of procedure on jurisdiction ... Pursuant to the applicable legislation ..., the claims are to be submitted to the court with jurisdiction over the region where the claimant resides or where the State authority ... whose action is challenged is located.
Pursuant to the [applicant’s] statement, the respondent authority in the case is the social security division of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Lithuanian Republic whose registered address is in [Vilnius, Lithuania], that is, a region outside the jurisdiction of the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow.
The applicant resides in [Vilnius, Lithuania], which is also not within the jurisdiction of the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow.
Having regard to the fact that [the applicant] has no ground to introduce his statement of claim before the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow and in compliance with Articles 24-27 and 254 § 2 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, the court hereby
RULES
that the statement of the claims be returned to [the applicant] and he be advised to lodge it before the relevant court in Vilnius, Republic of Lithuania.”
11.  On 30 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 29 April 2003 on appeal reiterating the reasoning of the District Court.
5.  The applicants were born in 1932 and 1934 respectively. The first applicant lives in Mala Moštanica, Serbia, while the second applicant lives in Clamart, France.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 30 January 1986 S.K. filed a real estate claim against the applicants with the Municipal Court in Novi Sad. The value of the dispute (vrednost spora) stated by the plaintiff was 4,000,000 “old dinars”.
8.  Following a remittal and a redenomination of the Serbian currency, on 14 December 1998 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants and noted that the value of the dispute was now 50,000 “new dinars”.
9.  Following two remittals, on 28 September 2001 and 17 June 2004 respectively, the Municipal Court twice ruled in favour of the applicants, and on both occasions reaffirmed that the value of the dispute was 50,000 new dinars.
10.  On 13 January 2005 the District Court accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff and, in so doing, ruled partly in his favour.
11.  The applicants, who were represented by legal counsel, thereafter filed an appeal on points of law (revizija).
12.  On 14 June 2006 the Supreme Court, however, rejected this appeal, stating that the applicants were not entitled to lodge it given that the value of the dispute in question was below 15,000 new dinars, the applicable statutory threshold. In particular, the court acknowledged that the parties had agreed, on 19 November 1998, that the value of the dispute should be 50,000 new dinars, but observed that there was no separate Municipal Court’s decision to this effect in the case file. Therefore, the relevant amount was the 4,000,000 old dinars, as stated in the plaintiff’s original claim, which was clearly less than the 15,000 new dinars threshold under the relevant civil procedure rules (see paragraphs 20 and 21 below). Lastly, implicitly relying on its Opinion of 22 May 2001, the Supreme Court noted that the Government’s Decree of 24 January 1994 had provided that until 22 July 1994 both old and new dinars would be valid legal tender based on the ratio that one new dinar was worth twelve thousand old dinars. The “plaintiff” himself, however, had “not amended the value of the dispute in new dinars” by 22 July 1994 (see paragraph 19 below).
13.  The applicants were served with the Supreme Court’s decision on 13 October 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Jurdani.
5.  On 25 February 2003 the applicant was divested of his legal capacity (poslovna sposobnost) by a decision of the Opatija Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Opatiji). The decision was based on a report by a psychiatrist, who established that the applicant suffered from organic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder as a result of his long-term drug abuse. The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be divested of his legal capacity for a period of at least five years in order to undergo psychiatric treatment.
6.  On 2 April 2003 the Opatija Social Welfare Centre (Centrar za socijalnu skrb Opatija) appointed the applicant’s mother, Lj.I.G., as his guardian.
7.  On 29 September 2006 the Opatija Social Welfare Centre appointed the applicant’s father, D.K., as his guardian since his mother had fallen ill. On an unspecified date the same centre appointed its employee J.L as the applicant’s guardian.
8.  On 30 June 2007 K.S. gave birth to a daughter, K., and named the applicant as the child’s father. On 17 August 2007 the applicant, with the consent of the child’s mother, gave a statement at the Rijeka Birth Registry (Matični ured Rijeka) saying that he was the father of the child, and he was subsequently registered as such on the child’s birth certificate. On 14 September 2007 the applicant gave the same statement before the Rijeka Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Rijeka).
9.  On 19 October 2007 the Rijeka Social Welfare Centre informed the Birth Registry that the applicant had been divested of his legal capacity.
10.  The Rijeka Birth Registry instituted proceedings in the Primorsko-goranska County Office of State Administration (Ured državne uprave u Primorsko-goranskoj županiji) for the annulment of the registration of the applicant as K.’s father. On 29 October 2007 the County Office gave a decision ordering that an amendment be made to the child’s birth certificate annulling the previous note stating that the applicant was the father of the child, on the ground that as a person divested of his legal capacity he did not have the right to recognise K. as his child before the law.
11.  This decision was not served on the applicant, since he had been divested of his legal capacity. It was served on his mother.
12.  On 21 March 2010 the Opatija Welfare Centre brought a civil action in the Opatija Municipal Court against the applicant, K.S., and K., seeking that the Municipal Court establish that the applicant was K.’s father. The proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Warsaw.
5.  On 19 April 2006 the applicant was charged with an unspecified offence.
6.  On 9 August 2006 the Prosecutor changed the original charges and charged the applicant with aggravated extortion. The applicant was additionally charged with drug trafficking committed between 2002 and 2003 in Warsaw.
7.  On 3 January 2007 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant was indicted as charged. The bill of indictment comprised charges against 17 accused.
8.  On 21 May 2007 the court held the first hearing.
9.  Hearings scheduled for 9, 10 and 18 July 2007 were adjourned because of the applicant’s counsel illness.
10.  Between May 2007 and February 2010 the trial court held some 30 hearings.
11.  On three occasions the applicant unsuccessfully sought the withdrawal of the judge dealing with his case.
12.  The proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.
13.  On 22 December 2009 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
14.  On 23 February 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint stating that that the proceedings had been conducted with the requisite speed and without undue delay.
15.  On 30 March 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking committed between 2002 and 2003 in Łowicz.
16.  On 9 December 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court judgment.
17.  On 8 January 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of vehicle break-in and theft.
18.  On 14 January 2004 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) convicted the applicant of vehicle break-in and theft and sentenced him to three years’ and six months’ imprisonment.
19.  On 20 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this judgment.
20.  On 17 April 2009 the applicant requested the Warsaw Regional Court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal.
21.  On 6 February 2010 the legal-aid lawyer informed the applicant that he had not found any grounds for lodging a cassation appeal.
22.  On an unspecified date, the applicant requested the court for leave to lodge a cassation appeal out of time and to appoint another legal-aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal.
23.  On 1 April 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request finding no basis for retrospective leave. It further refused to appoint another legal-aid lawyer.